Tuesday, December 04, 2012 5:01:36 PMJendrian, you do realize that the revolution started against Porfirio Diaz. hell the reason that he was popular was because he fought in the war to kick them out. The "French Revolution" happened over a hundred years b4 the mexican one.

I said that you won't hear Mexicans talking BAD about Diaz.

I never said the US financed or finished the war, instigated - yea.

You sound like one of those Mexican's whose "proud to be aztec" when chances are, the aztecs either sacrificed your ancestors, or your ancestors joined the Spanish against the Aztecs. I bet that you also believe the lie that Mexico never had slaves.

I'm trying to get you out of your fantasy world. Just suck up your pride and try to take a step out

Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:08:17 PM@Klaxor: oh my god, how many times do I have to repeat to you that I have never said, nor ever implied that the revolution was free from foreign involvement, much less from the US.

Geez, you know what, whatever, believe whatever you want. I'm sure in your history classes Porfirio Diaz was just a footnote (you said he's not talked about anymore, seriously?)

I'm sure the fact that Porfirio Diaz was a fan of Napoleon and kept on copying both their methods and architecture is something you missed. It's not like it's immediately visible every time you visit Mexico City.

You keep saying you're not trying to claim the mexican revolution, just stating over and over that the US instigated, financed and finished it.

Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:37:25 AMA coup is a tricky thing to do, especially if you don't think that your major economic partner will continue to do business with you.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't have happened without the US ambassador. The general revolt started almost as soon as Madero became president. But the presidential military held against the coup, and it would have held had not it been for the ambassador, who first dealt an armistice, then stabbed the president in the back by dealing with Huerta. "Fanning the flames"

Stop sticking to the idea that Mexican history is free of foreign involvement. Mexico was born out of globalization, right after cortez landed on its shores, and attracted foreign attention for most of its history.

Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:16:48 AMFirst of all, if you think Mexico's current identity is ideal, then god help you. I would have hoped for something better.

And once again, I'm not "claiming" the revolution. The U.S wouldn't have wanted it, it was bad for business. But the US (got and private citizens) did plant a lot of the seeds that led to revolution, and fanned the flames.

How do you think Porfirio Diaz increased Mexico's economy? With Rainbows and Sunshine? He played off of investors, mostly US, who bought up Mexican land for resource development. Diaz was a popular guy at first, a national hero. Hell, not a lot of people talk bad about him now a days. People revolted because all the money that Mexico was making stayed with a small elite and screwing over the peasantry, not because of "ideals of the French Revolution"

And the "US guy in Mexico" was sent there because of US interests. He was Tafts "best man for the job"

Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:14:42 AMAnd like I said before: I'm not arguing the facts; I'm arguing your interpretation of them, for example, in your last points you argue that Taft's messenger sided with Huerta, but after Wilson was elected he sided with the insurgents, yet the war itself didn't feel a shift. Is it so hard to understand from this simple point that the US's position didn't matter all that much?

1. I'm sure US History hides no facts whatsoever 2. Whatever is relevant for Mexican history from that of the US's I studied, I just never cared to learn anything else. 3. Are you seriously suggesting none of it would've happened without the assistance of Henry Wilson? 4. Are you seriously suggesting Porfirio Diaz brought Mexico's economy up by selling half of the country? Are you mad? 5. What does this point do? All it does is say "hey, there was a guy from the US in the country" 6. Oh look, an actual war between the US and Mexico, something separate from the war of revolution

Why do I argue those facts? Because you're claiming the US involvement in Mexico is not only what started, but also continued and ended the war that gave mexicans their current identity. I know the US was there, I'm saying it didn't play that big a role. Get off your high horse.

Tuesday, December 04, 2012 1:58:50 AM1: I'm Mexican as well, and I studied the history, doesn't really mean anything either way. A lot of the history that people learn about their own country tends hide a lot of the true facts.

2: US history is more tightly tied to Mexican history than Canadian. Try to take the "big picture view"

3: Henry Lane Wilson was directly involved in planning and assisting the assasination of Madero, leading to Huerta, continuing the revolution.

4. 45% is a big number, that helps to prove my point. Porfirio Diaz sold off all that he could( oil, gold, copper to US interests

5. Henry Lane Wilson was sent to Mexico by Taft to ensure that US interests were upheld, which led to him supporting Huerta (Diaz 2.0) over the populist Madero.

6. Woodrow Wilson then came into power. He hated Huerta and occupied Veracruz (aftermath of the BATTLE of Veracruz)

Why do you want to argue these facts. The US govt has consistently been involved in Mexic

Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:47:24 AMlook, I'm not going to argue on what the facts mean, I'm Mexican, I studied mexican history from the side of the mexican people, and more importantly I have never had the slightest interest in digging into US History.

My comment is very simple: it takes some egocentrism to take credit for somebody else's battles, and during this conversation you've claimed that a US Diplomat instigated the revolution, that US corporations in Mexico played a huge role (45% is a big number), and that the US would've ended the war sooner.

Yet you have the nerve to claim you're not trying to take credit for it.

Tuesday, December 04, 2012 12:00:37 AMMexico didn't own US land, US took Mexican land.

Jefferson Davis wasn't alive during the Mexican Revolution

And the revolution would have ended a lot sooner had not a Mexican general been pushed by what he thought would be American support.

I'm not trying to "claim" the revolution. I'm trying to state that the U.S. has had its hands in many pies over the years, probably more than were shown here, just like every other super power, and we should acknowledge it, instead of sweeping it under the rug.

and I think your confusing the Mexican war for independence with the Mexican revolution.

Given that Mexico owned 50% of US land at some point in history, and that you weren't there in Jefferson's office when or if it happened, I find your proposition to have very little value.

You can't take credit for the Mexican Revolution: I know the US played a small part in it, you don't need to keep hammering on the facts, but you also can't claim it. General dissent of the people with the government formed after the independence war and a growing popularity of French revolutionary ideals is what brought upon the Mexican revolution, not Jefferson saying: "we'll be here if you need us"

Monday, December 03, 2012 9:23:26 PMthe parties pretty much switched views around the 60's.Sigh...yet another Democrat lie. Democrats fought to keep slavery; Democrats instituted Jim Crow laws in the south, and a greater percentage of Republicans voted to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.

Looking at the black poverty rate, dropout rate, illegitimacy rate, abortion rate, crime rate, murder rate, and incarceration rate, you have to wonder why over 90% of them vote to continue the policies that have put them in their current situation. No matter how bad it gets for them, they just can't seem to walk away from the Democrat plantation.

Monday, December 03, 2012 9:13:43 PMAlso, a war like Vietnam may have been started by Democrats, but Nixon also escalated it...

@Prussia'sFool, that's just a Democrat lie. By the time Nixon took office, Johnson had escalated our troop level to over 536,000. Nixon started the Paris peace talks 4 days after his inauguration and started de-escalation that year. It's all here:

Monday, December 03, 2012 8:10:29 PMI know Cajun. TheGuySmiley's got exactly two modes: hardcore Christian evangelising on how God is Love (I mean, hardcore evangelising) on any thread vaguely related to religion, and "DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!, DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!, DEATH TO THE PRESIDENCY!!!!" on any thread vaguely related to American politics.

I honestly have no idea what his M.O. is. Either he's an expert troll who has us all fooled, or he's actually a f*cking moonbat.